Tuesday, February 24, 2009

It seems that a great number of Americans have a very wrong-headed idea as to how an economy works. And they get that wrong-headed notion from liberals who simply do not understand the first thing about economics.

How can I say that? Because it is a proved scientific fact. People who are liberal thinkers are proven to think with the right, creative side of their brain. Creativity should be left to them. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to think with the left, analytical side of the brain. Analytics should be left to them.

Economics is a study in analytics. If economics were simpler - as simple as liberals believe - it might be a different story. Economics involves long, complex strings of incidents in order to reach a conclusion. That requires analytical thinking. Therefore, conservatives are better able to comprehend economics far better than liberals, and few liberals have any true concept of economics at work.

If you are a liberal, that leaves you with but two choices:

1) You can choose to dismiss the science and stick to your wrong-headed ideas, or2) You can accept the truth, and learn from it. In doing so, consider leaving economics up to those who are better at it - conservatives.

Now that we have the science out of the way, we can present a basic understanding of economics in terms that almost anyone can comprehend.

The first thing to learn is that the "trickle down" theory is the ONLY economic model that works. And here is why:

If a rich business owner has more money, he wants to become richer, naturally. To do that, he must invest much of that money into his business. He must expand, hire, and produce more product or supply more service. That is how he gets richer.

Now, the money he is investing goes to jobs, salaries for his employees, benefits, and inventory, which in turn results in other businesses having to hire and produce. The money has already begun to trickle down, and will continue to do so as those employees spend their salaries.

If, on the other hand, the rich business owner has less money, he can no longer expand, hire or produce more, or buy more inventory from other businesses. And income begins to dry up. And jobs dry up with it.

You now see how money trickles down if the rich have money. Now let us see what happens if you take that money from the rich and give it to the poor, as liberals want to do.

First, only 5% of the people are rich - in number of families that comes to roughly 6,500,000 families.

Now let's take money from that 6.5 million and divide it up amoung the remaining 125 million families. As you can see, every dollar taken from the rich only results in a nickle to each poor person, because the numbers of poor are so much greater than the rich.

Now let's assume each person's collection of nickles comes to, say, $10,000. Can a poor person hire anyone for $10,000? No. He can only spend it, or save it. Being poor, it is unlikely they will save it. So, they spend.

It is this spending that leads liberals to believe this is how an economy grows. If people spend, businesses must produce more products, and hire more people. But that is exactly why liberals should stay out of economic theory. They do not think it through, because THAT requires analysis. Because if you recall, the money for expansion and production was taken from the rich in higher taxes and given to the poor. And they are still paying those higher taxes, leaving less profit with which to grow.

For example, let's say each poor person now goes out and spends $10,000. Instead of creating an environment for businesses to expand, the real result will be a shortage of products, because people buy available inventory, but businesses are not adding to the inventory. Why? Because the money they WOULD have used to hire and produce has already been taken from them, and CONTINUES to be taken from them in increased taxes, to give back to the poor. So, more product is being purchased than can be produced and replaced.

The result: supply dwindles, causing higher and higher prices. And the higher prices mean the poor actually become poorer, because that gallon of milk is no longer $4.00, but $6.00.

So, here it is in a nutshell. Businesses are the proverbial Golden Goose. And the goose lays Golden Eggs, which we refer to as jobs, products and the taxes that pay for everything - roads, schools, defense, medicare etc. The rich already pay 71% of ALL the taxes, and the poor already get all the benefit of that, without having contributed at all. The poor use the same roads the wealthy paid for.

Now, we can either feed the goose (lower taxes), and care for it so it will continue providing more and more eggs that we need and enjoy, or you can starve the goose (higher taxes), resulting in fewer and fewer eggs being produced, resulting in unemployment, recession and poverty.

Feed the goose, or starve it. Now THAT is a choice that even liberals should be able to understand.

Of course, you can do what Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to do, and carve up the goose, feeding it to the masses (socialism). But if we do that, please do not be so naive as to think there will be any more eggs. A dead goose cannot lay eggs. That is why socialism has failed in every nation where it was tried.

Under socialism, the wealth of the nation is evenly distributed. If you are going to get exactly what everyone else gets, why bother to work harder? Or try harder? Or be innovative? Why put yourself at risk to start a business if the income will be taken and given to others? Eventually, no one is contributing because it is easier to just take your "share". But if no one contributes, your "share" eventually becomes ZERO, because there is no more wealth to share. No one is creating it. The ONLY people capable of creating wealth are the rich, who own and run businesses. But socialism kills them off.

Monday, February 23, 2009

This just in: according to the latest news, it has been discovered that the equipment used to measure the icefields of the Arctic - you know, the instruments that told everyone that all the ice was melting - were faulty. Defective.

In remeasuring those icefields, it appears the earlier measurements under-reported the amount of ice by a whopping 193,000 square miles.

That one Helluva lot of ice!

Mr. Gore is not pleased with the news, and many so-called scientists are, as you might imagine, a bit red-faced.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

AOL reported a "poll" today from the absurd liberal media Harris Poll folks. There was one simple question:

"Who do you admire enough to call a HERO?"

Now for the not-so-surprising answer given the source. The Number One hero today was judged to be Barak Obama. This, in spite of the fact that, as yet, he has not done anything heroic, or of any consequence, other than get elected President - which is not "heroic" - and passing the biggest spending bill in history - also not "heroic".

It is amazing the lengths the liberal media will go to prop up this man's image. And that is only the beginning. Liberals throughout the world are fawning over him as if he were the new Messiah. Streets, schools, cities and mountains are being named after him, without him having done anything yet. Stores are creating window displays featuring him. Photos picture him with a halo. Everywhere you look you see Obama, or his image. One company said they would like to paint a giant image of him on the face of the moon, if they could.

Talk about cultism!

Well, AOL ran it's own poll, and asked TWO questions. Here are the questions and the results, from average folks:

Whom do you admire most from this list?Jesus Christ - 46%Ronald Reagan - 12%Barack Obama - 10%All others were lower

Isn't it strange that the AOL poll, across the board, differs so much from the Harris Poll? The Harris Poll had Obama at #1. The real poll had him at only 10% of the folks voting for him.

Again, the liberal media would have us all believe that Obama is some sort of Saviour, and they twist polls and stories to make it look true. But every time the folks are asked, it seems the opinion is quite different.

As for me, I do not have "heroes". But there are those I admire. Among them, Jesus would be Numero Uno. George Washington. Thomas Edison. Alvin York. John Wayne. Admiral Halsey. George Patton. Martin Luther King.

Sorry, Mr. President - you don't even crack the Top 1000. Perhaps if you make good and actually accomplish something noteworthy and good. But until then, you are not even in the running.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

If a person plays by the rules, does everything right, works hard and pays his bills on time, the Obama administration is going to "reward" that person by making him pay for those who were irresponsible slackers who chose not to play by the rules. Or so says this bogus "homeowner's relief bill" for those who bought more home than they could afford.

I may have to change the name of this BLOG, because all the normal rules of success seem to have been turned inside out and upside down by the new administration. Now, at least to the liberals, the road to success is irresponsibility and a desire to have others pay your freight for you.

I am not unsympathetic to people who, through no fault of their own, are facing foreclosure. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether taxpayers should cover for them, by force. Life is an uncertain thing - sometimes you win, and sometimes not. If it is our intention to create a society where no one ever loses, then we will find that EVERYONE loses, because it simply is not possible.

America was founded on independence, personal responsibility and hard work. And those are the traits that made us strong. And when we lose everything we have worked for, we get back up, all the stronger and more determined. That is where our strength comes from.

And suddenly, in a very short period of time, that 235 year tradition has been virtually demolished by bleeding hearts who believe life should always be a bowl of cherries, devoid of the very things that made us strong in the first place - trials and tribulations.

I do not enjoy losing - I have been homeless, living in a shelter and eating in soup kitchens. No one bailed me out. Not a pleasant thing. But had it not been for those experiences, I never could have learned the lessons I needed to learn in order to get where I am today.

It is sad that so many people want to rob life of its most valuable lessons.

In under two months, they have pissed through that and are now begging for another 20 billion. They accomplished nothing. They created zero jobs.

Now let us assume for a moment that Mom and Pop's little manufacturing firm that makes furniture, and has 20 employees, was given just $1 million. With that, they could hire 20 more employees and increase inventory, to produce more product. This results in a net gain of 20 jobs and an increase in GDP.

Now let us assume we used that 17 billion to pump one million into each of 17,000 small businesses. Instead of the ZERO new hires and ZERO GDP produced by the auto industry, those same funds could have created 340,000 jobs immediately, and increase the GDP substantially.

Moreover, those small businesses would not have any need to be back at the trough, because the increase in productivity increases profits.

Our government needs to stop and realize that you get much more bang for the buck when you help SMALL business, not BIG business.

Another fact: even if you do manage to save GM, that will benefit Detroit. The rest of the nation will still face serious problems. By helping 17,000 small businesses, you help 17,000 towns and cities across America.

Now let us see what we COULD have done with the Pelosi/Obama stimulus money of $787 billion. Using the same figures as above, $787 billion used to pump up small businesses across America could provide funds to 787,000 businesses and result in a net gain of 15.7 million jobs - enough jobs to put EVERY unemployed American to work, and still have enough jobs left over for 3 million legal immigrant workers wanting to come here.

Now let us assume each small business spent 25% of that money to build an addition so they could increase hires and production. That puts contractors, plumbers and electricians to work. It creates sales at lumber yards and hardware stores, lighting, plumbing. Contractors, paving bigger parking lots.

Instead, we have a dead economy, and only a possibility of 3 million jobs created OR SAVED.

What really surprises me is that all of Obama's great financial minds cannot see this. But according to quiznet, President Obama has an IQ of 127. That's barely better than average (98). That would explain a lot. Former NH governor John Sununu had an IQ of 156. My daughter's IQ also 156, which barely surpasses my own. Perhaps Obama could get some tips from her :o)

Some of us are old enough to remember the era of McCarthyism, who used and oversaw the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950's to "root out and expose" Communists living and operating in the United States - like Lucille Ball. What a joke!

And while it sounded like a good idea to many, those of us who remember know how much damage was done to innocent people - and to the country. To this day, the word "McCarthyism" is looked upon with revulsion as a synonym for "witch hunt".

But some people never learn. We are now entering into a new era of McCarthyism; a new witch hunt, courtesy of Senator Leahy (D) of Vermont and Representative Conyers (D) of Michigan.

These two degenerates are foaming at the mouth to start a "truth commission" to look into anyone who was connected with the Bush administration, looking for dirt, and hoping to ferret out information that can be used to prosecute those in the Bush administration.

However, the fact of the matter is that Leahy and Conyers, political pariahs, have no interest whatsoever in the truth. Their only interest is to push their far-left agenda, no matter who it harms - including their party, and President Obama.

Obama, like half of all Democrats and all Republicans have stated this "truth commission" is a very bad idea, and a witch hunt. They know it will harm everyone, even the Democrats, because in every poll, the people seem to be overwhelmingly against it. They see it for what it really is. Over 70% of all Americans are opposed to this commission, for they understand it will only serve to cause greater division in our country.

Furthermore, this "truth commission" will not even look for the whole truth - although many Democrats worked in concert with the Bush administration in putting together things like the Patriot Act, none of those Democrats will be investigated. Only the Republicans. Therefore, any "truth" that comes out cannot possibly be the truth at all.

Leeches like Leahy and Conyers should, themselves, be investigated, to discover their true motives. Why would anyone purposely harm their government, their own party, and embarrass their president in this manner, just to push their personal agenda at everyone's expense?Particularly since Democrat committees have spent two years investigating the Bush administration and have already determined nothing illegal took place.

I propose that Leahy and Conyers, if they are truly interested in any truth or justice, should form a truth commission to look into what individuals may have been involved in wrongdoings that helped cause this financial crisis. Determine the causes, and the people behind them, and prosecute anyone - even Senators - who may have been involved.

But they won't do that, because it is already known that their own - Dodd, Schumer, Frank and even Obama, himself - all were involved. We know this because it is public record that they either took millions in funding from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or got "sweetheart" loans from them.

Leahy and Conyers are not interested in seeking any truth that might implicate other Democrats, even though looking into the financial crisis that damaged this country is far more important than looking into the Bush administration policies that kept this country safe. Leahy and Conyers are only interested in getting into the limelight of fame, and be written up in history books - even if it will mean being in the company of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

It is a shame that the once revered and worthy Democrat party has been hijacked by the far left loons. Leahy, Conyers, Pelosi, Reid - all far left liberals with an agenda that is diametrically opposed to what 83% of this country really wants.

But that is what happens when a party begins accepting huge sums from the wealthy contributors, and sell their souls to people like George Soros. Once a politician is purchased, he or she will never again represent the people. They will only represent the reprehensible loons that bought and paid for their seat in Washington.

As Americans - not Democrats or Republicans - we have an obligation to take our country back, and oust the political hacks whose agenda is so apparently contrary to what America stands for. Ignore the political hype and lies put out by any party in their ads, or the news. Instead, look into the actual records, and check the TRUTH with reliable sources - not CNN, Saturday Night Live. Not the New York Times or NBC. They all have their own agenda, as was so terribly apparent in the past year.

Instead, when any party raises an issue, go check the Congressional Record, the Treasury website or the Department of Labor - any legitimate source that can back up claims made by either party. Because unless you choose to become truly informed, you WILL be duped, no matter how intelligent you think you are. That is because we can only make choices with the information we have available. If that information is misleading, or corrupt, then you cannot make good choices.

And while this will get a lot of folks into a snit, here is a little-known fact - little known because, for obvious reasons, the mainstream media will not tell you this:

Two exit polls held during the last election, one by ZOGBY and one by WILSON, presented voters with 12 simple questions relative to politics. As it turned out, two important results came out:

1) By a margin of 4-1, Republican voters were better informed and got most of the answers correct, and

2) the best informed voters claimed to get their news either from Fox News, or talk radio - or both.

Of course, liberals do not want to believe that, and you will never see those results in the mainstream media because it points out the same thing - the media is biased. But if you truly have an interest in the facts surrounding the issues, then look to sources that cover both sides. Fox and talk radio may have a consevative foundation, but in spite of that bias, they still give both sides, so you become better informed.

The rest of the media will only give the one side, and will denegrate any opposing information, or not even mention it.

After all, how many of you who do not watch Fox ever heard Obama say he would destroy the coal industry and cause the price of electricity to skyrocket? Only Fox covered that fully. On the other hand, how many of you heard from your sources that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house? Probably most of you. But did your source ever get around to telling you that was a made-up line on Saturday Night Live for a Tina Fey skit, and that Palin never said that? No, only Fox and talk radio covered that, and gave both sides. What Palin DID say was that, as governor of Alaska, the state was her "backyard", from which you can see Russia. And you CAN.

SNL twisted that to create a funny skit, which is what they do, and the mainstream media picked it up and told you the SNL version was the truth. And that is why so many people believe things that are not true, and cause them to be uninformed - or misinformed.

Which brings us back to Leahy and Conyers. Like SNL, these two clowns intend to take bits and pieces of facts, then glue them together to create a new "truth" they can then use to persecute - and prosecute - all those with whom they disagree. Which also explains why those two are also pushing for the censorship doctrine that would effectively shut down talk radio. They do not want any of us to know the whole truth. They do not want any opposing views to be heard.

And for that, Leahy and Conyers must be shut down, then evicted from their seats in Congress in the next election. We need honorable people, both Republican and Democrat. We need both in order to have balance. And we need them to be honorable in order to get good representation.

Right now, we are most unfortunate to have neither balance nor honor in Congress. We really need to do something about that!

A late note: today, President Obama's new Attorney General stated "we are a nation of cowards." Excuse me, Mr. AG - speak for yourself! He also said the average American does not talk enough about race. I guess Mr. Holder did not get the meno - you know, the definition of racism that says people who place enough importance on race to bring it unnecessarily into the conversation is a racist. It sounds like our new AG is promoting more racism, and we are cowards because we don't want to play that stupid game.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

I must have missed something important. The liberal left - including Pelosi and Obama - keep telling us we have to sacrifice to be MORE GREEN. That much I understand.

But then Pelosi, who is not an international player like the Secretary of State, flies her PRIVATE TAXPAYER JET to Italy. And OBAMA, on taxpayer money, flies every Friday to Chicago for a hot date with Michelle.

And Obama flies Air Force One to 5 states in one week, CAMPAIGNING. Pardon me for pointing this out, but I thought the election was over - he should stop campaigning and begin governing.

Moreover, it is illegal for him to use taxpayer funds to campaign. And that is exactly what he is doing - flying back and forth to the BATTLEGROUND STATES, and stumping.

The man has no time to read the bill he is signing, but has plenty of time for hot dates and campaigning.

And he uses the most UN-green method of doing so. His and Pelosi's carbon footprints are greater than any other 200 people (not counting Gore). But they tell US that we have to turn our thermostats down, and walk more.

Sorry, Mr President - I can only be led by example, if I can be led at all.

Get GREEN.STOP campaiging on taxpayer fundsSPEND enough time in DC to at least locate the White House bathroomAnd for crying out loud, READ the bills you sign.

Frankly, the President has a golden opportunity to do something absolutely brilliant (I know it's brilliant because I thought of it), and in doing so could win over a LOT of those who are currently opposed to this bill. If I were advising Obama, I would tell him this:

Get on the podium today. Look the camera right in the lens and say, "I came here today to sign this recovery bill. I have spent the last few days looking it over carefully. And I have concluded that I cannot sign this as it is written. I promised the people "NO PORK". And while there are many things in this bill that conservatives call pork, there are a couple of items that are OBVIOUS pork, and I will be giving this bill back to Congress with instructions to take those items out before giving this bill back for my signature. I am referring specifically to the 30 million dollars for protecting the sea marsh mouse, and the 8 billion for a high speed levitating rail system that will only benefit certain people in just two states. I hereby implore Congress to give me a bill that is free of those obvious and unquestionable earmarks."

If Obama would do that one, simple thing, he would instantly become a hero, even though it is barely a token gesture - less than 1% of the bill. Yet, many who now oppose him will give him a second chance simply because he did the unexpected, bucked a Congress that has a poor approval rating, and at least put on an air of fulfilling a campaign pledge.

But Obama will not do that, because he is not brilliant. Smart, yes. Brilliant, no.

Monday, February 16, 2009

That's the news story these days. On the one side, Democrats are accusing Republicans as not being bipartisan because they did not back the stimulus bill. On the other hand, Republicans accuse the Democrats of not being bipartisan because they refused to allow the Republicans to participate in the process.

So, just what is the truth?

Simple - just look at the word BIPARTISAN. By definition, it means "two parties working together to achieve a common goal." In this case, one party did not permit the other to participate.

Here is what actually happened.

The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, refused to include Republican input on this bill. In fact, she literally locked Republicans out of the room while this bill was crafted. Pelosi refused to allow a single Republican House member to include any input whatsoever. She even refused to allow Republicans to present their own version of the stimulus bill, which was half the cost.

Then President Obama, claiming an effort of bipartisanship, conferred with House Republicans. But instead of asking for their input, he said, and I quote, "We won; we get to write the bill." Not exactly a prelude for bipartisanism. In short, he said "Sit down and shut up", and he then called that an effort to reach across the aisle.

He and Pelosi both told house Republicans that they would not be able to participate in crafting the bill, but they both wanted the Republicans to vote for it, to make it "bipartisan". They did not want a bipartisan bill. All they wanted was a bipartisan vote. That is disingenuous.

Here's the problem, folks. If the only "bipartisanism" is in the voting, and not in the creation of a bill, then there is no bipartisanism at all. That is merely "selling out."

If Congress truly wants bipartisanism, they need to allow both parties to contribute to the process. The needs of both parties should be addressed. In that way - and only in that way - do we get a good, fair bill.

Both parties need to help craft a bill. Both parties need to contribute to the ideas and suggestions. Both parties need to discuss it, and make compromises. Then, and only then, should Pelosi or the President ask for a bipartisan vote.

That is not what happens in Pelosi's House. The very day she took over as Speaker in January of 2007, she rewrote the rules for Congress, literally. And one of those rules allowed her to exclude the other party from negotiations. And that is as opposed to bipartisanism as one can get.

To tell Republicans they cannot help write the bills, they cannot make suggestions or adjustments, they cannot make amendments, and they cannot present their own version to the floor, and then they cannot even be present in conference for putting together the final draft, and THEN to tell Republicans they must vote for it or be accused as being obstructionist is such a total dishonesty that it is nothing short of reprehensible.

Perhaps the Democrats - Pelosi, Reid and Obama in particular - should remember an important point. Yes, they won. But every Republican in Congress ALSO won, or they would not be there. They have a right to be heard, and a right to participate. And if the Democrats recognize those rights, and invite the Republicans to participate in the entire process, then we will see bipartisanship. Until then, all we have is the tyranny of Pelosi, fueled by the arrogance of Obama.

By the way - if you earn only $25,000-$30,000, your cost to pay for this bill is only $2,500. But if you earn more than $30,000 and under $100,000, your cost to pay for this bill will be $14,000. Over $100,000? Well, your cost can be as much as $90,000. The ones who get the least from this bill, or nothing at all, will pay the most, by far.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

I got an email today from a nutcase who thinks Republicans are bad people because we did not want to support the free condoms, or the funds for education, health and highways in the stimulus bill. He went on to say that we hate women and kids because we opposed the free condoms.

Typical liberal - only sees PART of the picture, then jumps to stupid conclusions.

For example, Republicans do not oppose CONDOMS or birth control. What we do oppose is FREE condoms. We do not believe that we should be paying for someone else to go out and party. They won't pay for my beer, so why should I pay for their condoms?

Liberals want to dance to the music, but only if someone else is going to pay the band. Here's an idea - if you cannot afford 50 cents for a condom, then you are not responsible enough to be having sex in the first place - stay home and keep it in your pants, Bubba.

I managed New Hampshire's homeless shelter for 6 years, and even the homeless could scrounge up enough to buy a freakin' condom! And they always came back drunk, so they could afford booze. So, anyone who says he cannot afford a condom is lying.

The point is, the liberals like to point to a lie and call it the truth. Because Republicans voted against giving out FREE condoms, the liberals try to paint us as being against birth control, and that is not only absurd, but a lie, as well.

And when this idiot said republicans are against education, health and highways, I had to laugh. Apparently, the loon does not realize how absurd his comment is - that even Republicans use the schools, roads and hospitals. So, NO, we are not opposed to them. We voted against them because they are not STIMULUS, and this was a STIMULUS BILL. By tacking such worthy projects onto an emergency bill passed on the quick and the sly, you do it no service. Attached to such a bill, there is no time to discuss it on its merits, repair any holes or kinks in it, and produce a bill that gets the job done right, instead of on the quick and the sly.

Education projects belong in an Education Bill. Health projects belong in a Health care bill. But the liberals just don't get it. They want to just roll everything together in one giant ball, then rush it through so nothing gets done right. Then, when it falls apart, they will blame Republicans for "not being part of the process". They will conveniently forget that Pelosi and Reid shut the Republicans OUT of the process.

I just wish liberals would try being intellectually honest instead of always spinning the truth for political purposes. When they say Republicans are "against birth control" simply because we do not want to pay for free condoms, that is just plain dishonest. When they say Rush said "I want Obama to fail...", without finishing his sentence ("...IF he is going to follow a socialist agenda."), they are being dishonest. Rush does not say he wants Obama to fail - he says he wants any socialist agenda to fail. They conveniently leave out the "IF", in a blatant attempt to spin the truth into a lie.

And I am getting damned sick of that BS. And I am not afraid to tell the truth, and say that SPINNING the truth like that is UNAMERICAN. Americans are supposed to have HONOR and INTEGRITY. And the left-wing loons that propagate this kind of BS have neither.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

President Obama, speaking at the site of Caterpillar, stated on camera that the president of Caterpillar said, " If this stimulus bill goes through, we can hire back some of the people we just laid off."

The same day, when a reporter asked the president of Caterpillar if he would hire back laid off workers if the bill passed, the man said, "No, not really. In fact, we will probably have to lay off some more."

It seems Obama will resort to anything - even bald-faced lies - to get his stimulus bill shoved down our throats.

The not-so-odd thing is, the only news media that showed the video of the Caterpillar president contradicting Obama was - that's right - FOX News.

It seems that the exit poll by Zogby that showed the best informed voters got their news from FOX has a lot of merit to it. Love it or hate it, you at least get both sides.

I have been saying that, since most recessions end naturally within 18 months, we would be seeing positive changes, even without any "stimulus" package.

Here are the latest stats:

Home foreclosures are down for JanuaryJobless claims dropped slightly in JanuaryRetail sales rose in January

Certainly, not enough to crow about, or even to pin big hopes on. But what it certainly does prove is that this recession is not bottomless, and can, indeed, clean itself up without government intervention.

The bad news: the Democrats in Congress will claim any softening of the recession is a result of their heroic efforts with the stimulus bill - even though none of the stimulus has yet been injected into the economy, and most of it will not be during this year. But they will claim it, anyway.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. She planted her crop, and the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"Not in my job description," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)

"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)

"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)

The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)

And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, except the little red hen, who could not understand why it was fair to everyone but her.

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and wanted her bread free, too. "Why should I work hard for what I can get for free?"

And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.

But because no one was baking bread anymore, they all starved, and cried, "Woe is me." And they all blamed the little red hen because she had stopped supporting them.

EPILOGUE Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

I am about to make the boldest prediction yet. And I am almost willing to bet the farm on it. Of course, in this economy, the farm ain't worth much.

So here goes - it's long, and multi-faceted, which is what makes it bold:

First, a version of this porky "stimulus" bill will pass. But it will fail. It will fail for several reasons, including

1) Most of the funds are not set to be expended for at least 18 months

2) Most of the expenditures are not designed to stimulate anything

3) Before those expenditures can even be made, the economy will start to recover on its own

When John Q Public sees the economy recovering in 2010 even without all those expensive pork projects that put their children's futures in hock, John Q is going to be very, very angry. Angry that we will now be spending a trillion dollars UNNECESSARILY, for projects we do not need. And angry from the realization that this bill was not passed because of any need to rush to fix the economy, but because Congress saw this as a golden opportunity to use fear to pass 40 years of pork spending in just 30 days.And John Q will notice something else: that inflation is setting in because this bill devalued the dollar. And he will realize in horror that Congress used fear tactics to push through a socialist agenda.

The Democrats are banking that the pork will buy them enough votes to get reelected in 2010 - that is the purpose of pork - to buy votes. But they are putting their money on the wrong side.

John Q is going to be royally - and rightfully - pissed. Just as they were with the Republicans in 2006 because they tried to sneak through a bogus immigration amnesty bill. And they will vent that anger in the voting booths all across this nation.

Meanwhile, the RNC is rebuilding the party of the true conservatives, and getting rid of all the RiNO's. By 2010, the Republican party will have better candidates, a strong message and a promise to help fix the damage caused by the Pelosi - Reid gang of thieves.

And John Q Public will do in 2010 and 2012 to the rotten Democrats what they did to the rotten Republicans in 2006 and 2008 - send them packing. By the end of the election in 2010, Republicans - TRUE republicans with conservative, financially responsible platforms - will retake both of the People's Houses in a big way. And in 2012, even the White House will be in Republican hands. Not necessarily because they will be better, though they probably will be - at first. But because the People will not forgive the Democrats, nor reward them, for nearly destroying America.

And then it will be the Democrats who will have to transition their party, as Republicans are doing now. The Democrats will have to come to the realization that their base is not the nutcase fringe on the far left, any more than the Republican base was in the liberal camp of moderates (RiNO's). The Dems will have to clean their own mess, just as Repubs are doing now.

But that will be more difficult for the Democrats than it is for the Republicans, and here is why: The Republicans have no allegiance to the RiNO's, and do not receive much funding or support from them. So the party can dump them, and revert back to its roots rather easily. The Democrats cannot do that - the far-left fringe such as Moveon.org, the Daily Kos and billionaire Goerge Soros have purchased the Democratic party. They own it. They fund it. If the Dems were to clean house and revert back to being the party of the people, all of that funding would dry up like a dead leaf in December. Either that, or all that far left money would be used to unseat the saner Dems, and replace them with far-left loonies who WILL do the bidding of George Soros & Company.

If not for the money aspect, coming from the far-left extremists, the parties could go back and forth in control, as would be normal. But because the Democrats may take years to regain control of their own party from within, I believe the Republicans, after gaining power, will keep it for at least a generation to come, barring any great disaster.

It is nearly impossible to get our two political parties to work together for the good of us all. And that is because they do not understand a simple concept - to work in a bipatisan manner, each party must stick to the things they do best, and leave everything else to the other party.

Science already knows that there are physiological differences between conservatives (Republicans) and liberals (Democrats). Republicans are conservative because they think primarily with the left, analytical side of the brain. Democrats tend to think with the right, creative side of the brain, which gives birth to liberal concepts.

Therefore, it makes sense that Republicans should handle the analytics - WHAT is the problem, WHY is it a problem, WHEN does it have to be addressed and WHAT exactly should be done. Once the analytics are taken care of, the issue should be turned over to the Democrats to devise a creative method for solving the problem within the framework established by the analytics - the "how-to", if you will.

Once the Democrats construct a workable solution WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK of the analytics, both parties would then confer and work out any kinks. The Republicans would use their analytical prowess to analyze the creative solution put forth by the Democrats, to try and find any problems in it, and between the two parties, they would settle on a workable solution.

The key is two-fold:

1) Each party sticks to their part of the process, and2) Each party must work within the framework of the other parties decisions.

In this way, the problems we face would be analyzed by those who are best suited to analytics, and a solution created by those most adept at creating. Then the two would work together to smooth it all out, and work out the kinks.

And the bill that is created should address ONLY the issue or issues at hand. No earmarks. No "pork". Nothing slid in secretly at the tail end of the process. The Dems cannot change the analytical framework established by the Republicans, and the Republicans cannot change the creative solutions of the Democrats, except as agreed upon, in concert, by a majority of both parties during the final conference.

This is the only way that bipartisanship can become a mainstay of the political process, benefitting all Americans.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A typical atheist posted on the last entry, "Do you have evidence of your magic spaceman?"

A more ignorant statement could not be made.

First, no one mentioned "magic", nor "spaceman". That poster is trying to make a point not with any facts, but with insults and insinuation. That is a sign he or she cannot make their point, and is ignorant of anything else.

Second, there is evidence of God everywhere. Literally EVERYWHERE. But I would counter with, "Do YOU have any evidence that there is NO God?"

Anyone who has followed this blog knows I have already pointed out a ton of evidence, including the simple fact that even if evolution happens, it CANNOT account for many things, most notably:

1) Inanimate objects that obviously exist, but cannot evolve, and

2) Inter-species dependencies.

While #1 may not necessarily require intelligence for its existence, #2 definitely does. For one species to develop independently of another, but in such a way as for each to benefit one another requires planning, thought, design. Intelligence. And even Einstein recognized that, and stated as much. So much for believers being ignorant. It would seem that it is the non-believers who suffer from that malady.

People who choose not to believe in God make that choice not because there is any evidence that points to a Godless universe, but because they simply are either arrogant, thinking we mere mortals are the kings of the universe (which is laughable), or they simply do not WANT there to be any God. They are afraid of God. He will judge them. If they believe, it would interfere with the bad choices they want to make, such as lying, cheating, adultery, abortion etc. So, it is easier to live that way, and live with themselves if they convince themselves that God does not exist.

But they do not realize that it does not work that way. The simple fact that they do fear the consequences of a God only proves they believe He could exist. If they truly believed there is no God, then there could be no fear of Him. Hence, they would not have to object when others do believe. Instead, they would simply smile at what they believe to be our folly, and walk away. No skin off their noses.

But that is not what they do. They object. They try to remove religion and God from the public square. They object to Christmas, and Easter. But if they are so certain there is no God, why bother to object at all?

The point is, most atheists are not really atheists. They are deniers. A true atheist has no need to deny God, because to him there IS no God. Why bother to deny something that does not exist? Bill Maher is the most famous denier. And a moron.

A denier, on the other hand, believes. But does not WANT to believe. And he hopes that by denying God, that will make him go away.

But saying that black is really white does not make it white.

Einstein said it well, when he said:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Lately I have been reading blogs and boards where folks are slamming religion, and almost as a chorus denounce the existence of God.

What really gets me worked up is when they, like that idiot Bill Maher, say intelligent people could not believe in God, and people who believe in God are "stupid, ignorant people."

And it is THEY who are stupid and ignorant, and it is intelligent folks who believe. As proof, I have gathered up the names of numerous people, all of whom are considered GREAT MINDS, and all of who stated publicly their belief in God. Here is just a partial list:

EINSTEIN'S VIEW OF GOD"I believe in [a] God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

It would appear this list of obviously intelligent people would give the non-believers who think believers are ignorant a real drubbing. The truth has a tendancy to do that to ignorant folks.

So, if you do not believe, that is fine with me. I really do not concern myself with your eternal fate. But whatever you do, don't even think about calling us believers "ignorant, stupid people living in a cult." Because that woiuld just make you a stupid, ignorant person living in denial.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The Democrats want a stimulus bill that is $800 billion, of which half is pure pork. Republicans proposed a stimulus bill of $400 billion that includes all the stimulus, but none of the pork. And that reminds me of the James Caan western where, when asked why he only wore one spur, Caan said, "Well, I've learned that if you get one half of the horse moving, the other half will follow."

Saturday, February 7, 2009

This just in - Sarah Palin will stop the shooting of wolves in AK. Instead, they will capture them, transport to DC and set them loose in the halls of Congress. Three problems solved - the caribou are protected from wolves, and the wolves don't have to be shot. We ALL know what the third problem was...

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Just received the following from a reader who has issues with my last post. I will print his/her message, and insert my responses as we go along. I am not editing the message to correct any of the grammatical errors, so don't blame me for them...

"im not tryin to humilate you or anything but those faxts about the raptors you are getting are from jurrasic park most likley, actaully the raptors were a intelligent "DINOSAUR""

[REPLY] I believe I did say they were intelligent, as is indicated by all the most recent research. I never even saw Jurassic Park - I'm not into juvenile Hollywood stuff. For the record, the most recent data also indicates that T-Rex was not a predator as commonly believed, but a scavenger.

"and the average brain size of a dino's brain would be the size of a peanut or smaller... and the raptors are measured up to be just above that"

[REPLY] Of course, what this reader fails to point out is that brain size does not necessarily denote intelligence.

"and turkey's are not as dumb as people take them as turkeys have some of the greatest eyes and could see a movement about up to one mile"

[REPLY] I am sorry, but vision is not connected in any way to intelligence. And it is well documented that in a heavy rain, turkeys will look up to see what is hitting them, and will drown themselves trying to figure it out. I consider that to be less than intelligent. I also have a flock of wild turkeys that visit my yard daily, and I have been observing them for years.

"and raptors wouldent devolve because raptors could not fly turkeys posses that ability"

[REPLY] Evolution has ONE function - to provide something necessary for survival. Flight is necessary for prey, more than for predator. The fact that some birds are predatory only indicates that some birds evolved to that stage. But for an efficient and dangerous predator to evolve into something that must flee at every sound or movement is absurd on its surface. Why would such an efficient killer require the ability to flee?

"...plus on the addition that wild turkeys may be alittle fat but they are not infact those are just feathers that a shotgun would have trouble punching through thats why hunters always go for headshots on a turkey."

[REPLY] Interesting - but I don't believe I ever mentioned the fat content of turkeys. The only ones I get that close to are Butterballs.

"again im not tryin to be ignorant by any means but i want you to know some true and hard facts before posting false info"

[REPLY] If I post something, the facts have already been checked, and found to be as accurate as current data allows.

I was watching the boobtube and some "documentary" that attempts to make evolution the only credible theory began by telling us that the noble turkey evolved from raptors.

I am STILL laughing my ass off! Here are just a few reasons why - bear in mind, all those evolutionists, even after 150 years of trying to prove evolution, have never evolved a leg to stand on, pardon the pun. (By the way - I believe in both SOME evolution AND creation - see below).

Let us first consider what science already does know. We know that a dominant trait, such as intellect, will survive while regressive traits, like stupidity, will fall by the wayside. And scientists say they have reason to believe that raptors were among the most intelligent of creatues, with an ability to hunt in packs, and even set traps for its prey. But now these Darwinists are trying to tell us that, after a few hundred million years, that the raptor intellect has regressed to the stupidity found in the turkey - the bird that will drown itself in a heavy rain. That would be DEvolution, not EVolution.

And evolutionists, themselves, have always claimed that mammals evolved from sea creatures and flying reptiles and birds. Now, suddenly, they are telling us it is the other way around - that intelligent reptiles evolved into stupid birds.

And back to the dominant trait thing. Raptors, being fierce predators, would have little reason to develop methods of fleeing. And flight is just that - a method of fleeing, which is how the phrase "interstate flight to avoid prosecution" got its name. Now, if evolutionists can be believed, and evolution is a process of adapting to needs of survival, why, pray tell, would the raptor have to develop wings? Maybe he had an inherent need to flee from all those dangerous nuts making documentaries.

I must say, I believe in evolution, to a point. But I do not believe that it is mutually exclusive of all other theories, such as Creationism. Anyone who believes in God must believe that God is all-powerful, and the most intelligent of all. Now think about that. Here we have an entity that is so incredibly smart that He can create beauty, then create the eye with which we can see the beauty around us. As smart as man is, we cannot duplicate that, or, as one poet so aptly put it, only God can make a tree. So, if he is that smart, why would He possibly create creatures who are incapable of adapting to changing conditions? Even mere mortals, as dumb as we are, try to improve our creations. Why would an all-powerful, omnipotent entity create something that is destined to die out because it cannot adapt? Nosir. If God exists, He is certainly smart enough to give us the ability to evolve.

So I believe that both Creation and evolution have worked hand-in-hand to bring about all that exists today. And a growing number of scientists are agreeing with that. Of course, uninformed evolutionists say that Creationists think the Earth was created just 6000 years ago. While it is true that some uninformed Creationists believe that, most do not. We realize that the Bible, as written today, is nothing more than an imperfect translation. When translated correctly, the Bible makes a case for the Earth being billions of years old, and that "creation" took many, many epochs and eras. Anbd while the English translation states Noah lived to be 960 years old, the original scriptures indicate he lived 960 "moons", or months - in other words, a perfectly normal 80 years.

But to some folks, perception is truth. So they just cannot recognize that the Bible they read may not be an accurate translation. Heck, some even think the original Bible was written in English!

And there are uninformed persons on both sides of the debate. Fully 80% of the folks who believe in evolution and who are not actual scientists actually believe that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It is not. It is simply a theory, for which there is no solid, indisputable proof.

I am a highly educated individual. My IQ is high enough to have been invited into Mensa. So I take great exception to fools who say that "believers" in God are a bunch of uneducated idiots who are following some sort of cult. In fact, it tends to be the most intelligent persons who believe that "chance" cannot explain our presence, or how something can evolve until first it exists. And we realize that evolution only can involve living matter. Rocks cannot evolve - they can only erode. Without Creation, where did non-living, non-evolving matter come from?

I have many personal experiences that have proved to my satisfaction that a greater intelligence supervises this show. And anyone who lives their life with eyes and mind open will see the same things. But all too often folks will focus on themselves, and their own, immediate surroundings, completely oblivious to the intricacies involved in those surroundings.

For example, the ecstacy we experience with a sexual act. That is not something that could "evolve". Yet, it is a necessary component for our survival - it is one of the reasons we even bother to procreate. But that ecstacy could only have been instilled by design. Chance cannot account for it. Man could procreate without it. But it takes INTELLIGENCE to determine there is a NEED for something that will INSURE survival; a need to DRIVE us to sex.

Or how about the interdepencies among species? Sure, if one specie develops a need for something, such a wings or lungs, then it could evolve. But not when the dependence is by another unrelated specie. How could one creature evolve in some way that is only for the benefit of an unrelated species? If Man evolves with gills, it would be because MAN needs gills, and not because some other species needs us to develop them.

For example, blackberries, chickadees and pine trees. Each is a separate species, but they require each others "cooperation" in order to survive. Pine trees provide the needed shade for the blackberry's roots, so it can flourish. The blackberry bears fruits, which the chickadees eat. But the seeds are not digestable. So the chickadee lands on the pine branch and passes the seeds - along with a glob of fertilizer to help it grow in the shade of the pine. Birds need blackberries. Blackberries need both the birds to sow and fertilize its seeds, and the trees to provide needed shade.

How convenient that it all works seemlessly, and the dependencies of one specie are conveniently met by another. How could such intricate interdependencies possibly be explained by evolution alone?

Or how about something even simpler - how and why bees pollinate plants so the plants can reproduce? Random chance? Bees MUST have pollen to survive. The flowers MUST have bees to survive. How can evolution explain how the needs of one species gets "known" by another, which adapts accordingly?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

According to the IRS, 136 million Americans file a tax return. Of those, only 78 million result in any taxes - the rest either get all their money back, or even more than that, due to tax credits like the child credit. 41% of all adults do not pay any taxes at all.

Ergo, 78 million taxpaying families are picking up the tab for the entire 180 million American families (360 million people)

Now do the math - if the proposed $819 billion "stimulus" package was given back to the taxpayers, each tax paying family would receive about $10,500. Now THAT is what I call STIMULUS!

But the liberals claim that any tax refunds should go to the poorer folks - the ones who did not pay any tax in the first place. The problem with that is two-fold: first, the poor will not, or cannot use it to stimulate the economy - they will pay off debt, buy drugs, or spend it on plasma TV's as a ONE TIME shot to the economy. Nothing lasting.

But the second problem is one that is even more "to the point" - fairness. Let me explain.

Let's say two people, Bill and Bob, go to a restaurant. The tab comes to $100. Bob, who is wealthier than Bill chooses to pay the tab. Bill gets a free meal and pays nothing. But before leaving, the manager comes up and says, "I forgot - we are running a special today, 20% off everything. Here's $20 back."

I ask you - WHO should get that refund? We all know the answer to that. But liberals don't like the answer, so they say "Bill should get it because he is broke and needs it more."

I say, "So What?" He was broke before he went to the restaurant. And he already collected a free meal. He is not entitled to anything more. Period.

And THAT is why it appears that the wealthy get all the tax breaks. It is because it was their money to begin with, and if some comes back, it should come back to the owner.

When the wealthy pay their taxes, they are paying not only their own share, but also the shares for all those who pay no taxes. So, those "poor" people have already benefited at the expense of the wealthier folks. They do not pay for the roads, bridges, national defense, entitlements - NOTHING! They get a free ride on the backs of those who work harder and earn more. And then when the government gives some of the rich guy's money back, those "poor" people who already got a free ride scream that THEY deserve to get that money.

Where I come from, that is called adding insult to injury. First we pay their way, and then they want our money, too.

So I ask you - what is the difference between that, and a mugger stealing your wallet because you have $20 more than he does? After all, you have money, he does not. Why is he not entitled to what you have? Should he not be able to take your money because he is poor and you are not?

Liberals say "yes". Sane people say "no".

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Some liberal fruitcakes read that a volcano might erupt in Alaska, and they are already blaming it on Sarah Palin. These people are just unbelieveable!

I realize it is very early in the game, but it appears that President Obama's approval rating is tanking so fast that you may have to dig to find it next month. On inauguration day, he was at 74%. As of yesterday, polls had him down to 55%.

Much of this can be attributed to the "wake up call". Americans are waking up to the realization that his "stimulus bill" is very short on stimulus and long on spending - spending we simply cannot afford at this point. When introduced, that bill enjoyed about 80% support. As of today, that is down to 42%, with many Democrats abandoning it. But that bill is not the only problem with Obama's approval rating. For those who have not bothered to do the math, the 3-4 million jobs the $819 billion bill is supposed to create works out to roughly $205,000 per job. That's a helluva job! Seems it would be far more effective to create $35,000 jobs, instead, at a cost of roughly $140 billion. That saves us almost $680 billion.

What the bill managed to do was open some previously closed eyes, and now even many of his supporters are beginning to gasp at some of his cabinet choices. Geithner, a tax cheat, and now Daschle, another tax cheat (who just dropped out because more crap is turning up). And now a THIRD tax cheat - Nancy Killefer, President Obama's pick to be the "Chief Performance Officer" to oversee government efficiency, who at least had the grace to step aside when found out. Add to that Ms. Brown, leader of Socialists International being appointed as an advisor, and two other picks are lobbyists - chosen right after Obama signed an order that prohibited lobbyists.

Frankly, the man is losing his street cred - which was phony to begin with. The teflon is wearing thin, and it may be that things are beginning to stick. Especially considering that every one of his first official acts were contrary to the best interestes of the people - sending $450 million to other countries for birth control and abortion assistance, during a recession no less; ordering a stop to racial profiling for terrorists; closing GITMO with no plan on what to do with the terrorists; ordering that we cease any and all harsh interrogations of terrorists; then giving his first TV interview on the terrorists own network, Al-Arabiya.

Mr. Obama is fond of making the claim that he fashions himself after Lincoln, his idol. Judging from how his approval rating is dropping like a rock, perhaps he should have made note of Lincoln's favorite saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

I am no big fan of George Bush, but Mr. Obama is beginning to make Bush look good.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

As you might imagine, since I have been investing in real estate for over 40 years, I have had the opportunity to enter a lot of homes. Many thousands. And early on in my career I noticed something that has been a part of my long and successful career.

I noticed that every older home has a character of its own. New homes seem to be devoid of any.

I am not talking about physical, architectural character. I m speaking about an emotional character. But before you write this off as some sort of strange, paranormal voodoo crap, I would ask you to consider a few things, and even test it for yourself.

I can walk into a home for the first time, and immediately get a "feeling" about the home. Some feel quite comfortable and homey, while others just give me the willies. And still others seem rather vacant of character, as if it were a new home.

I have come to believe that emotions are as real as, say, radio waves. Or radiation. You cannot see them, but they can still affect you. And strong emotions are absorbed, if you will, into the structure, itself, just as radon is absorbed. Over time, strong emotions of inhabitants would be absorbed into the walls, ceilings, floors of the home, and this gives the home its character. That is what you feel when you walk into a home for the first time. Perhaps you feel a coziness. Or a coldness. Or even a sadness.

Of course, some people feel nothing. It may be that a sensitivity to emotion may not be unlike a sensitivity to, say, pollen. It affects some more than others, and some not at all.

I have walked into homes where I immediately felt anger. Some exuded hatred. Others, sadness. And some just felt great. And in a brand new home, I feel nothing at all. It has no history of emotions.

How does this help me as an investor? Quite simply, most people can sense when a place feels cozy, or when it feels "creepy". And it is easier to resell a place where folks feel at home. In every case, any home I purchased for resale that did not exude a sense of comfort was a home that stayed on the market far too long. Buyers, upon entering, felt it. They might not understand why they felt uncomfortable. But it made the "first impression" one of undesireability. So, I learned not to invest in any property that had any negative feeling to it.

The next time you enter an older home for the very first time, immediately ask yourself how the place "feels". You'll see what I mean. Each home has its own character, created from emotions of its past residents that have become, if you will, the home's "memory".

I was always taught that a good leader tries to uplift his or her people, and keep them energized. Take Reagan' "city on a hill" speech, as an example.

With today's dark situation, the American people need a leader who will say things like, "Sure, things are rough right now, but we are America, and nothing can ever keep us down. Let's pull together and things will get better." That sort of thing. Positive vibes. Encouragement.

But what are we getting from our Leaders today? Obama, Pelosi and Reid have all gotten in front of the camera to tell us how dire everything is, and that it can only get worse. Obama said, "This is a disaster that is not going to get better anytime soon."

While that may be an accurate asessment, it is definitely not the kind of pep talk that will fire us up, and get us pulling together. On the contrary, it sends the message that we may as well not even try, that all is lost.Bummer!